I hope the study is available online for free as it will be interesting to see his methods. Christy is a vocal, politically active and famous skeptic which tends to undermine his academic work credibility. The news report suggests that there are a number of reasons to question the conclusions.

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-- Carl Sagan

It would be interesting to see his "study" and to find out why he believes climate change rests upon the snow level in one tiny part of the world and not on the overall average temperature increases that have been documented.

Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday….

Don't know about the last 130 years, but a study published in Nature Magazine on Feb 8th confirms that there wasn't any significant lose (melting) of the ice fields and glaciers in the lower 48 states of the U.S. in the eight year period from 2003 through 2010. But the most unexpected results of the this NASA/GRACE study is that the glaciers of the Himalayas aren't melting as fast as previously thought. According to the study, most of the ice melt is occuring in and around the Arctic.

Changes in ice thickness (in centimeters per year) during 2003-2010 as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, averaged over each of the world's ice caps and glacier systems outside of Greenland and Antarctica. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Colorado)

Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, with no evidence that anything has changed as a result of climate change, according to a study released Tuesday….

Don't know about the last 130 years, but a study published in Nature Magazine on Feb 8th confirms that there wasn't any significant lose (melting) of the ice fields and glaciers in the lower 48 states of the U.S. in the eight year period from 2003 through 2010. But the most unexpected results of the this NASA/GRACE study is that the glaciers of the Himalayas aren't melting as fast as previously thought. According to the study, most of the ice melt is occuring in and around the Arctic.

Changes in ice thickness (in centimeters per year) during 2003-2010 as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, averaged over each of the world's ice caps and glacier systems outside of Greenland and Antarctica. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Colorado)

.

I don't follow your claims. I don't see any suggestion that there "wasn't any significant loss". The loss was less than previously estimated by other means as I read the abstract, but loss nevertheless. The Science Daily report suggests that 3/4 of the ice loss is occurring from Greenland and Antarctica and the overall sea level change during the study period was about 0.5 inch.

"The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep."

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-- Carl Sagan

I wasn't making any claims. Just reporting that this study shows (look at the chart I provided from the study) that there wasn't any significant melt-off of the ice fields and glaciers in the Lower 48. Which sort of corresponds to the study cited in the SF Chronicle (though, albeit, for a much smaller time period (just eight years, not 130 years)).

I also just restated what was stated in the study that the authors were surprised to see that a lot less ice had melted from the Himalayas than previously thought.

QuoteplawrenceI wasn't making any claims. Just reporting that this study shows (look at the chart I provided from the study) that there wasn't any significant melt-off of the ice fields and glaciers in the Lower 48. Which sort of corresponds to the study cited in the SF Chronicle (though, albeit, for a much smaller time period (just eight years, not 130 years)).

Climate change is not based on a selected 10 year period. Those I know that work in Glacier National Park would disagree about no "significant melt-off" in the glaciers there. Of course there was no significant loss in many of their glaciers during that time period - they were gone by then.

QuoteI also just restated what was stated in the study that the authors were surprised to see that a lot less ice had melted from the Himalayas than previously thought.

That does not change the fact that our climate is changing due to human activity.

I wasn't making any claims. Just reporting that this study shows (look at the chart I provided from the study) that there wasn't any significant melt-off of the ice fields and glaciers in the Lower 48. Which sort of corresponds to the study cited in the SF Chronicle (though, albeit, for a much smaller time period (just eight years, not 130 years)).

Climate change is not based on a selected 10 year period. Those I know that work in Glacier National Park would disagree about no "significant melt-off" in the glaciers there. Of course there was no significant loss in many of their glaciers during that time period - they were gone by then.

QuoteI also just restated what was stated in the study that the authors were surprised to see that a lot less ice had melted from the Himalayas than previously thought.

That does not change the fact that our climate is changing due to human activity.

I never stated, nor implied, that it did. Don't be so defensive.

I was just adding some data points, especially in regards to the study that Frank posted about the Sierra Nevada snowfall for the past 130 years.

The NASA/GRACE study I referenced was more about how new satellite technology is helping scientist determine – in a more accurate manner – the extent and pace of the land ice melt-off around the world. The results of the study demonstrates how previous methods of measuring the change in the size of the glaciers could prove to be inaccurate. In other words, it's an improvement over the past methods.

QuoteplawrenceI never stated, nor implied, that it did. Don't be so defensive.

Those are common arguments from climate change deniers.

QuoteI was just adding some data points, especially in regards to the study that Frank posted about the Sierra Nevada snowfall for the past 130 years.

They need to look at the snowfall for at least 130 years. Cherry picking a 10 year period is going to give false results.

QuoteThe NASA/GRACE study I referenced was more about how new satellite technology is helping scientist determine – in a more accurate manner – the extent and pace of the land ice melt-off around the world. The results of the study demonstrates how previous methods of measuring the change in the size of the glaciers could prove to be inaccurate. In other words, it's an improvement over the past methods..

Many are trying to use the argument that the new method of measurement proves that they were wrong about all of climate change. The new method just shows us that the overall change is not equal around the globe, but we already knew that.

QuoteplawrenceI never stated, nor implied, that it did. Don't be so defensive.

Those are common arguments from climate change deniers.

QuoteI was just adding some data points, especially in regards to the study that Frank posted about the Sierra Nevada snowfall for the past 130 years.

They need to look at the snowfall for at least 130 years. Cherry picking a 10 year period is going to give false results.

QuoteThe NASA/GRACE study I referenced was more about how new satellite technology is helping scientist determine – in a more accurate manner – the extent and pace of the land ice melt-off around the world. The results of the study demonstrates how previous methods of measuring the change in the size of the glaciers could prove to be inaccurate. In other words, it's an improvement over the past methods..

Many are trying to use the argument that the new method of measurement proves that they were wrong about all of climate change. The new method just shows us that the overall change is not equal around the globe, but we already knew that.

The NASA/GRACE group of scientist are not Climate Change "deniers" nor were they trying to cherry pick with their study. Their study starts in 2003 only because the satellites that they're using to make the measurements have only been in operation since about 2003.

Sheesh...

(For someone that supports the consensus opinion in regards to global warming and climate change, you appear to be extremely defensive. You ought not to be since the science as of now appears to support the consensus opinion a lot more throughly than the skeptics' position.)

Personally, I would like to see some evidence that humans are not screwing up the environment and that we can pollute the environment without any consequences. That would be like a "Free Lunch". It would make the life of an old man easier and more guilt free as I will not be around all that long (considering the age of the universe). Life is certainly easier by burning fossil fuel. So, I have some interest in the possibility that the CO2 effects may be misrepresented. However, the inexorable accumulation of evidence seems to indicate androgenic global warming. What is interesting is that most of the denier literature is merely opinion and reference to anomalous data, as though all data everywhere is going to demonstrate warming. So, personally, I favor contrary studies as a test of the AGW hypothesis. If AGW is correct, as it seems to be, it will only be strengthened by faulty opposing studies and the denier arguments that "contradictory studies are being suppressed by the global conspiracy of science" is undermined.

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-- Carl Sagan

QuoteFrank FurterPersonally, I would like to see some evidence that humans are not screwing up the environment and that we can pollute the environment without any consequences. That would be like a "Free Lunch". It would make the life of an old man easier and more guilt free as I will not be around all that long (considering the age of the universe). Life is certainly easier by burning fossil fuel. So, I have some interest in the possibility that the CO2 effects may be misrepresented. However, the inexorable accumulation of evidence seems to indicate androgenic global warming. What is interesting is that most of the denier literature is merely opinion and reference to anomalous data, as though all data everywhere is going to demonstrate warming. So, personally, I favor contrary studies as a test of the AGW hypothesis. If AGW is correct, as it seems to be, it will only be strengthened by faulty opposing studies and the denier arguments that "contradictory studies are being suppressed by the global conspiracy of science" is undermined.

That would be nice, but the problem is the "contradictory studies" are not studies at all and are not based on any kind of science. Most often they are politically motivated tirades based on thoroughly debunked claims. The facts mean nothing to them. No amount of data could change their position since it's not based on data but emotions.

I am not objecting to your opinion, just trying to clarify--- did you not state:"a study published in Nature Magazine on Feb 8th confirms that there wasn't any significant lose (melting) of the ice fields and glaciers in the lower 48 states of the U.S. in the eight year period from 2003 through 2010."

That statement appears to me to be your claim that there wasn't any significant loss of ice. I just don't see that in the abstract you presented. There are no statistics and not even a suggestion that the loss is insignificant. Or, maybe it does demonstrate that and I missed the point of the article. However, it does seem clear that you were claiming that a conclusion was demonstrated in the article.

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-- Carl Sagan

I am not objecting to your opinion, just trying to clarify--- did you not state:"a study published in Nature Magazine on Feb 8th confirms that there wasn't any significant lose (melting) of the ice fields and glaciers in the lower 48 states of the U.S. in the eight year period from 2003 through 2010."

That statement appears to me to be your claim that there wasn't any significant loss of ice. I just don't see that in the abstract you presented. There are no statistics and not even a suggestion that the loss is insignificant. Or, maybe it does demonstrate that and I missed the point of the article. However, it does seem clear that you were claiming that a conclusion was demonstrated in the article.

I was basing that statement on the data map that was provided with the article. Here is the map again:

Changes in ice thickness (in centimeters per year) during 2003-2010 as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, averaged over each of the world's ice caps and glacier systems outside of Greenland and Antarctica. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Colorado)

The blue shading signifies a decrease in the ice thickness while the pink signifies an increase in the ice thickness between 2003 and 2010. Note if there was a discernible decrease or increase in the ice thickness of the ice fields and glaciers of the the Sierra, Cascades, and the Rockies (including the Canadian Rockies) there would be small specks of blue (or pink) in those areas. But this map shows no significant change (less than +/- .5 cm/year) in the ice thickness along those mountain ranges. Of course, this is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things because the ice fields and glaciers of the Sierra, Cascades and Rockies hold extremely little amounts of water, but I just pointed it out only to support the notion of the study you originally posted here that focused on the snow level of the Sierra for the past 130 years.

Quote..... But this map shows no significant change (less than +/- .5 cm/year) in the ice thickness along those mountain ranges. Of course, this is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things because the ice fields and glaciers of the Sierra, Cascades and Rockies hold extremely little amounts of water, but I just pointed it out only to support the notion of the study you originally posted here that focused on the snow level of the Sierra for the past 130 years. ....

The word "significant" is the issue and implies an analysis of the data statistically.Perhaps I am just being overly pedantic, but I don't see that the information supports that conclusion. For one thing, the glacier systems in the temperate zones may be too small to show up on the map. Furthermore, even if there actually is no change in perennial ice thickness measured in the Sierra, whether or not that is significant is not demonstrated in the information you present. Stated differently, "no change" may actually be significant. Just saying.

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-- Carl Sagan